Probation Department an ally to Catherine Greig at sentencing

From the beginning, there has been little doubt about where the government and defense would come down on sentencing in the Catherine Greig case.

The prosecution wants to throw the book at James “Whitey” Bulger’s longtime lady friend for harboring-a-fugitive and conspiracy to commit identity fraud. The defense, meanwhile, believes that, notwithstanding the high-profile nature of the case, a much shorter stint behind bars is appropriate.

But what’s been unclear is what the Probation Department – a major player in federal sentencing – would have to say on the subject.

That question has now been answered.

Greig’s lawyer, Kevin D. Reddington, revealed in a June 11 memorandum that probation’s calculations call for a sentence in the 27- to 33-month neighborhood, a number that falls far short of the 120-month term prosecutors requested in their June 8 filing. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jack W. Pirozzolo countered that the judge should set aside probation’s findings because the agency incorrectly applied the guidelines, and that the range it should have come up with is 108 to 135 months.

Greig will learn her fate tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. in front of U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Woodlock. It promises to be a contentious and unusual hearing.

Not surprisingly, Reddington wrote that he agrees with probation’s recommended 27- to 33-month range. He points out that his client is 60 years old, with no prior criminal history – factors that support a low-end guideline sentence. “[T]he Probation Department has done a complete and thorough job of accurately presenting to this Court her personal history replete with the factual presentation of her life, work history, family and emotional events that have impacted her life,” he wrote.

Reddington is asking the judge to sentence the former dental hygienist to 27 months behind bars. She obviously would be entitled to credit for the time she has spent in custody since her arrest last summer. “[T]he repeated mention of the high profile nature of this case and attendant publicity should not and will not cause a draconian imposition of sentence as that would not be consistent with the interests of justice,” Reddington wrote.

Although the Probation Department’s calculations are certainly important and will get a lot of play tomorrow, they aren’t the be-all end-all. Ever since the Supreme Court held in its 2005 U.S. v. Booker decision that the guidelines are not mandatory, judges have much more freedom to deviate from them. The judge in the Greig case will use them as the starting point of his analysis; much of tomorrow’s hearing will focus on whether he should grant an upward or downward departure.

Woodlock is viewed as a middle-of-the-road judge on sentencing. He has been known to tell lawyers appearing before him that he sees the guidelines as “strictly advisory.” There are cases in which he has imposed sentences above the guidelines and cases in which he has gone below. I expect the judge’s number to fall somewhere in the four- to five-year range. But as they say in baseball, that’s why they play the games.

Look for the government to come out swinging tomorrow. Prosecutors have already said that the Greig matter is unlike any they have ever seen in Massachusetts and that the need for deterrence is high. Greig didn’t just live with Bulger in Santa Monica; she was his partner, Pirozzolo wrote. “This is as extreme a case of harboring – at least in terms of its length and the seriousness of the fugitive’s alleged crimes – as may exist in any domestic case,” he stated. “The United States has been unable to locate any comparable cases.”

One of the major sticking points at tomorrow’s hearing promises to focus on cash and weapons. When Greig and Bulger were arrested last summer in California, more than $800,000 and two dozen firearms were allegedly recovered from their two-bedroom apartment. The government argues that Greig must have known about them. If the judge agrees, it is much more likely that Greig will receive a stiff sentence. Although Greig and Bulger have both claimed that she had no knowledge of the money or the weapons, prosecutors say that her claims are not credible.

If prosecutors truly believe what they are saying about the weapons, it begs the question: why wasn’t Greig ever charged with firearm possession in California? A conviction on the left coast would have inevitably led to a sentence much closer to the 10 years the government is asking Woodlock to impose. Those charges never will never be filed, however, as Greig’s plea agreement was signed by prosecutors in California and Massachusetts and bars her from standing trial there for firearms possession or any aggravated identity theft offenses.

Reddington didn’t hold back in his filing about Steve Davis, whose sister, Debra, was allegedly murdered by Bulger. He wrote that, after Greig pleaded guilty in March, the U.S. Attorney’s Office was subjected to a media firestorm led by Davis. “It was then and only then that a full court press was organized to bury Catherine Greig with a severe prison sentence coupled by a demand for exorbitant fines and seizures of everything she owns,” Reddington wrote. “The ever garrulous Davis and his incessant press conferences and criticism of the United States Attorney’s Office as well as the ‘evil’ Greig is clearly the ‘tail wagging the dog.’”